前言 美国最高法院刚开工，就搞出了大动静！ 特朗普三起总统权力案被排上日程，从11月起将接连上演"关税权""解雇权""金融控制权"三大战役。 更刺激的是，6名保守派大法官中3人由特朗普亲手提拔。 这场司法对决不仅关乎总统宝座，更可能永久改变美国宪法规则书。 特朗普的"权力生死劫" 10月的华盛顿秋意正浓，最高法院门前的台阶却火药味十足。 法官们刚开工就干了两件大事：一脚踢开爱泼斯坦案女主角麦克斯韦的上诉，二是否决了密苏里州想 搞"枪支独立王国"的美梦。 但明眼人都知道，这些只是开胃小菜，真正的主菜得等到11月才上桌，特朗普的"总统权力三部曲"要开 锣了。 九人决定美国走向 第一部叫《关税权争霸战》。还记得特朗普当年和中国打贸易战吗？他大手一挥就给进口商品加税的法 子，到底算不算总统特权？各州早憋了一肚子气，这回终于能在最高法院说道说道。 第二部是《解雇风云》。特朗普在任时开除过几个"不听话"的官员，其中联邦贸易委员会的丽贝卡·斯 劳特和美联储的丽莎·库克把他告了。 这俩人背后站着国会撑腰，咬死总统不能随便炒"特殊保护职位"的鱿鱼。12月这场官司，说白了就是总 统和国会掰手腕。 压轴戏在明年1月上演，主角还是美 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the tension between President Trump's actions regarding the Federal Reserve and the recent Supreme Court ruling in the "Trump v. Wilcox" case, which emphasized the independence of the Federal Reserve despite the president's authority to dismiss other agency heads [1][3]. Group 1: Supreme Court Ruling - The Supreme Court ruled that while the president has the authority to dismiss heads of independent agencies, this does not extend to Federal Reserve members, thereby preserving the institution's independence [1][3]. - The ruling highlights the importance of maintaining the Federal Reserve's autonomy to prevent political interference in monetary policy, which could lead to long-term economic risks [3][8]. Group 2: Trump's Actions - President Trump announced the dismissal of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook, directly challenging the Supreme Court's delineation of presidential power over the Federal Reserve [3][7]. - Trump's justification for the dismissal included allegations of misconduct, which appear to be politically motivated rather than based on substantial evidence [7]. Group 3: Legal and Economic Implications - The article notes that the Supreme Court's justices, who generally support a unified executive power theory, face criticism for their inconsistent application of this principle, especially regarding the Federal Reserve [5][9]. - The ongoing legal battle surrounding Cook's dismissal is expected to reach the Supreme Court, raising significant concerns about the future of U.S. economic policy and the potential for political manipulation of monetary policy [9].

Core Viewpoint - A New York appellate court ruled to overturn a previous civil fraud penalty of approximately $500 million against former President Trump and his company, citing the penalty as "excessive" under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution [3]. Group 1 - The appellate court's decision was made by a panel of five judges, with a majority acknowledging that Trump did inflate asset valuations, such as those of Mar-a-Lago and the Trump Tower penthouse, but deemed the lower court's penalty as excessive [3]. - Following the ruling, Trump expressed his approval on social media, labeling the previous ruling as "illegal and shameful" and characterizing the case as "unprecedented political persecution" [3]. - The New York Attorney General's office announced plans to appeal the ruling, indicating that the legal battle is far from over [3]. Group 2 - Trump's legal pressures have notably decreased since his return to the political scene, with the U.S. Department of Justice previously dropping two federal criminal cases against him based on the policy that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted [4]. - Despite being convicted in a separate case related to hush money payments, a judge ruled that Trump would not serve jail time, and the U.S. Supreme Court recognized broad immunity for presidents while in office [4].